T HERE WAS NO honeymoon. Less than two weeks after Eisenhower's swearing-in, Senator Wayne Morse remarked scornfully that the country would be better off under Taft; a few days later, the maverick Senator branded the Eisenhower Administration "reactionary" and urged liberals to wake up and marshal their weapons to fight it.1 Even friendly sources were disenchanted. Henry Luce Time magazine, which had done everything possible to signify the arrival of better days in Washington, recalled the "dry creek" Scripps-Howard editorial of campaign days and noted that the Presidency was in a similar period, "a painful interlude where the objectives were set but the Administration was getting nowhere."2 And Arthur Krock, who had been praising the qualities of the Eisenhower leadership and style, was forced to admit the validity of the mounting apprehension about the "timorous manner" of the Administration.3 Some natural friends were finding the need for patience and understanding.
They had to realize that the White House needed to assure conservatives that there had indeed been a change from Truman's ways. Dulles, in a speech interpreted by many as an attempt to regain for the State Department the popular and Congressional support that Dean Acheson had lost, chastised those Europeans who "want to go in their separate ways" in the face of the "deadly serious" threat of encirclement being posed by the Russians and their allies. He warned that the United States, which had invested about $30 billion in Western Europe, would have to reexamine her relationships with those allies if there was "no chance of getting effective unity." Ignoring what he had said earlier about liberat-